Justice-Concept-Procedural and Distributive

-Justice as Fairness (John Rawls)

- Idea of Justice (Amartya Zen)

-Communitarian Perspectives of Justice

Justice is the central force of all the societies and is necessary to maintain order and harmony
in a state. A just society is based on the notion that all the members should benefit and there
should be no exceptions. From Plato to John Rawls, many scholars see justice as the first
virtue of a society or social institutions. Justice has central place in ethics, legal and
political philosophy.

MEANING

The word ‘justice’ has been derived from the Latin word jus or justus, meaning rights
or law or justitia/justus meaning justness or reasonableness. In contemporary world,
justice determines the criteria to allocate benefits like goods, services, opportunities and
honours as well as burdens in a society, particularly in a situation of scarcity. Justice is
not a static but a dynamic concept which adapts according to changing times. Eg: slavery and
women subordination were justified in ancient times but with gradual social changes, these
practices are no more justifiable today.

In his book Republic, Plato sees justice as a virtue of social order, where each person does
what they are best suited for based on their reason, wisdom, and courage.

Aristotle distinguished between three types of justice. First, distributive justice refers to
distribution of divisible things like wealth and benefits. Second, corrective or remedial
justice is done when a person causes harm to another and justice is done to the victim by
eliminating the disadvantage. Third, commutative or reciprocal justice refers to fair
exchange in voluntary transactions. It must be mentioned that distributive justice is applicable
to political aspects, corrective in civil and criminal aspects while reciprocal justice applies to
economic transactions.

For Jeremy Bentham, justice had a utilitarian dimension as he argued for the greatest
happiness of the greatest number. Bentham subordinated justice to utility and he was
against judicial activism to interpret laws.

1
J S Mill slightly modified Bentham’s doctrine by inserting qualitative aspects as well apart
from quantitative ones.

For John Austin, law is the source of justice as it flows from the laws created by the
sovereign.

Contrary to the liberal view which sees justice as a synthesis of liberty and equality,
Marxist scholars argue that class inequalities need to be eliminated by overthrow of the
state and justice would prevail in a classless and stateless society.

Dimensions of Justice

There are four dimensions of justice, legal, political, social and economic.

Legal justice pertains to justice based on law as propounded by Thomas Hobbes, Jeremy
Bentham and John Austin. This view believes that law is the command of the sovereign
and the only source of justice. Here, the focus is on how the law is formulated, whether
there is rule of law and whether it is fairly applied to all the individuals.

Political justice means that politics should have representative character, ensure political
participation, equal political rights and association of citizens in the decision-making
process. Political justice exists when there is political equality through rights such as
universal adult franchise, right to contest elections etc. It also ensures accountability by
giving the final authority to the citizens who elect the government.

Social justice stands for merging individual interests with those of the society. It stands for
equal opportunity without discrimination based on caste, class, religion and gender etc. Social
justice demands that the interests of the deprived sections are safeguarded by the state. The
overall belief here is that the community interests as a whole will be better served if
development of the marginalised sections is ensured.

Economic justice has been the basis of the socialist movement. It pertains to just
distribution of economic resources, benefits and opportunities to achieve a just
economic order. The liberal and welfare perspectives treat economic justice in terms of fair
and adequate chances to earn livelihood and economic benefits. It is mainly redistributive
justice supported by neo liberals like Harold Laski, L T Hobhouse and John Rawls. They
advocate state intervention to protect weaker sections. The Anarchists, Socialists and
Marxists, on the contrary, relate economic justice to the abolition of private property.

2
The Marxist position is that all other dimensions of justice are a reflection of economic
justice and without realisation of economic justice, other types of justice cannot be achieved.
Economic justice also stands for the end of alienation and exploitation as per the Marxist
tradition. Economic justice stands for equal pay for equal work and provision of social
security to ensure development of the needy ones.

Important Concepts

Some important concepts that one needs to keep in mind while understanding the concept of
justice.

Conservative justice

Conservative justice pertains to existing norms and practices. Justice may seek to respect
people’s rights under existing law or moral values or fulfil their expectations acquired from
past social conventions.

Ideal justice

Ideal justice seeks to reform the existing norms and practices. The decision of Supreme
Court of India stating that marriage is not a pre-condition for adults to live together can be
cited as a relevant example here.

Corrective justice

Corrective justice implies that a bilateral relation between the wrongdoer and the victim
and demands that the fault should be cancelled by compensating the victim and
eliminate any advantage secured by the wrongdoer by his faulty actions.

Procedural Justice

Procedural Justice emphasizes the importance of just and fair procedures for the allocation
of social advantages. If the procedures are fair outcome will also fair. Procedural justice,
as the name suggests is concerned with fairness of processes and procedures to arrive at
policy decisions. In general terms, it is justice as per law and procedures established by
law. Justice is assumed to be done when procedures are followed in accordance with the
law. Traditionally, procedural justice has been associated with formal equality among
individuals which means human beings are equal before the law irrespective of

3
differences like gender, religion and caste etc. Rights based justice is seen as procedural
justice. It treats justice as a result of individual behaviour which cannot be applied to society.
Since individuals are rational beings who can make their decisions on their own, state
should not be allowed to interfere in individual entitlements. Hence, procedural justice
theories make a case for individualism and market economy. Robert Nozick’s theory of
justice explained in his book, Anarchy, State and Utopia is an example of procedural
theory of justice.

Distributive justice

Distributive justice is concerned with just allocation of benefits, opportunities and

resources etc to ensure equality of outcome by the state based on various factors like
need, equality and desert. The demands for distributive justice arose in response to
utilitarianism which focused on quantity as it stood for greatest happiness of the greatest
number. The idea was opposed by socialist, communist and anarchist movements which
favoured some economic levelling or allocation according to the need to ensure quality of
happiness as well. Distributive justice is important for a society’s efficient functioning
and welfare of its members. True equality gives members a sense of membership in a
society, especially the sections which are marginalised. This is important to avert political
violence and avoid challenges to the state authority from internal threats. Unequal
distribution can be a cause of social unrest and redistribution of benefits can help in
relieving tensions. Aristotle believed that unequal distribution of property is one of the
causes of injustice and civil war in a city. He further stated that men desire equality and
hence, honour and rewards should be distributed as fairly as possible to avoid a
revolution. For example, India resorted to land reforms after independence to eliminate
social injustice and ensure equality in the agriculture sector. The most influential theory
of distributive justice over the last half century has been John Rawls’s theory termed as
‘justice as fairness’ given in his 1971 book, A Theory of Justice. He developed a rival to
utilitarianism, a dominant theory of his times which Rawls saw as a morally flawed theory.
The flaw is that utilitarianism justifies sacrificing the good of some individuals for the
sake of the happiness of the greatest number. Utilitarians believe in aggregate happiness
produced by justice and not the welfare of each individual. Rawls was inspired by
Immanuel Kant’s moral idea that gave due importance to equality and freedom of each
human being (liberal-egalitarian). Kant argued that each human being should be seen

4
as an end in himself and not as a means to an end. Through his theory of justice, Rawls
gave central place to the moral principle of equality and freedom of each individual.

Justice as Fairness (John Rawls)

After World War II, political theory in the West leaned towards a behavioral approach,
emphasizing value-neutral and fact-based analysis. This shift led to a scarcity of normative
principles and values in political science. John Rawls reintroduced these elements with his
influential theory of justice. His approach emphasized distributive justice and the equitable
distribution of primary goods within a society. Rawls’s contract-based theory of justice was
influenced by earlier thinkers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and J.J. Rousseau, and it
focused on individual rationality and decision-making through a social contract. Rawls’s
work sought to reconcile the principles of liberty and equality in what he termed "justice as
fairness." This theory offered an alternative to the utilitarian justice perspective that
dominated Western liberal thought since the 19th century. Rawls's ideas were designed to
address the needs of the liberal democratic welfare state that emerged post-World War II.

Core Concepts of Justice as Fairness:

1. Distributive Justice:
o Rawls defined justice as the primary virtue of social institutions, which should
guide political and legislative decisions to ensure fair distribution of primary
goods.
o Primary Goods are categorized into:
 Natural Goods: Include intelligence, health, and talent. These goods
are influenced by social institutions but not distributed by them.
 Social Goods: Include income, wealth, and opportunities. These goods
are directly distributed by and affected by social institutions.
2. The Original Position:
o Rawls introduces a hypothetical scenario called the "original position," where
individuals determine the principles of society they will inhabit.
o Key assumptions in the original position:

5
  Veil of Ignorance: Individuals lack knowledge about personal details
such as social background, abilities, and wealth, ensuring impartiality.
 Rational Decision-Making: Despite ignorance of personal attributes,
individuals make rational choices to maximize their own interests.
 Individuals are self-interested but not egoists, focusing on maximizing
personal interests like liberty and income.
 In this state, individuals choose principles that would ensure fair
distribution, minimizing potential losses, and ensuring no one is
excessively disadvantaged.
3. Principles of Justice:
o Principle 1: Equal Liberty Principle – Each person has an equal right to the
most extensive basic liberties compatible with similar liberties for others.
o Principle 2: Social and economic inequalities should be arranged to:
 Difference Principle (2a): Benefit the least advantaged members of
society.
 Fair Equality of Opportunity (2b): Ensure all positions and offices
are open to everyone under fair conditions.
o Rawls argues for the priority of the first principle over the second, ensuring
individual liberty is paramount. Within the second principle, the difference
principle takes precedence over fair equality of opportunity.
4. Basic Liberties:
o Include political liberties (e.g., voting rights), freedom of speech and
assembly, property rights, and protection against arbitrary arrest.

Relevance in the Indian Context:

Rawls’s concept of justice is particularly relevant in India, where the Constitution

incorporates systemic departures from strict equality to achieve justice. These modifications
aim to eliminate discrimination against deprived sections and promote national integration.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, chairperson of the Constitution’s Drafting Committee, emphasized the
importance of addressing social inequality for sustaining political democracy. This view
aligns with Aristotle’s ideas that unchecked social inequality can lead to political instability.
Consequently, the Indian Constitution includes provisions for reservations in education,

6
administration, and legislative bodies for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other
Backward Classes, ensuring benefits for the least advantaged sections of society.

Limitations of Rawls’s Theory:

1. Rationality in the Original Position:

o Critic Brian Barry questions the assumption of rationality in the original
position and highlights the difficulty in defining the least advantaged members
of society.
2. Communitarian Critique:
o Communitarian thinkers argue that Rawls’s focus on the individual
undermines the community's importance. Michael Sandel describes Rawls’s
view of individuals as disconnected from societal contexts, while Charles
Taylor criticizes Rawls for prioritizing the individual over society.
3. Libertarian Critique:
o Robert Nozick’s entitlement theory opposes Rawls’s distributive justice,
asserting that individuals have moral rights to freely choose as long as they do
not harm others. Influenced by John Locke, Nozick argues against state
redistribution of property, viewing it as a violation of natural rights.
4. Marxist Critique:
o Marxists criticize Rawls for failing to address exploitative inequalities
between capitalists and workers, focusing instead on fair distribution within a
capitalist framework. They argue that Rawls’s veil of ignorance is unrealistic,
as understanding justice requires awareness of actual social and economic
conditions, emphasizing the role of class relations and ownership of private
property.

Conclusion:

Rawls’s theory of justice as fairness offers a comprehensive framework for considering how
societies can distribute goods equitably, balancing individual liberties with societal needs.
While it has been influential in shaping modern political theory, it faces critiques from
various philosophical perspectives, each emphasizing different aspects of the complex
relationship between individuals and society. Despite these criticisms, Rawls’s ideas continue
to spark discussions about justice and fairness in both theoretical and practical contexts.

7
 Idea of Justice (Amartya Zen)

“The only way to have a just society is to work constantly towards achieving it.”
— Amartya Sen

The concept of justice has been a central theme in philosophical inquiry, with scholars and
thinkers developing various theories to explain its nature and application. Amartya Sen, an
influential economist and philosopher, presents a compelling alternative framework in his
book The Idea of Justice. Published in 2009, this groundbreaking work challenges traditional
notions and inspires new perspectives on creating a just and equitable world.

Sen argues that justice should not be limited to mere distribution and fairness. Instead, he
proposes a broader understanding that encompasses capabilities, freedoms, and the
functioning of institutions. By expanding the scope, Sen aims to address the variations in
individuals’ opportunities and well-being.

Expanding the Scope of Justice

Sen emphasizes that justice should not be restricted to economic or material distribution
alone. Traditional theories often prioritize resource allocation, neglecting the concrete
experiences and capabilities of individuals. Sen introduces “realization-focused
comparisons,” which consider the actual achievements and capabilities of people within a
society. This approach includes factors such as education, healthcare, political freedoms, and
social well-being, broadening our understanding of justice and inviting us to consider the
multifaceted aspects that impact individuals’ lives.

The Capabilities Approach

At the heart of Sen’s work is the capabilities approach, developed alongside Martha
Nussbaum. This framework shifts the focus from measuring access to resources to evaluating
what individuals can actually do and be. It emphasizes the importance of considering a wide

8
range of factors that contribute to human flourishing, enabling individuals to function as
active members of society.

The capabilities approach identifies fundamental capabilities, such as being nourished,

accessing healthcare, participating in political processes, and enjoying social relationships.
These capabilities can vary across cultures, societies, and individuals, reflecting diverse
conceptions of a valuable life.

Sen highlights the role of both personal and social factors in enabling individuals to achieve
their capabilities. Personal factors include health, education, skills, and agency, while social
factors encompass the broader social and economic arrangements, institutions, and policies
that shape opportunities. For example, a person’s capability to access education might be
influenced by gender norms, poverty, or discriminatory practices.

The capabilities approach has significant implications for policymaking, emphasizing the
expansion of opportunities and freedoms by addressing barriers. Policies should focus on
enhancing education, healthcare, social protection, and gender equality, contributing to
individuals’ well-being. It also calls for a participatory and inclusive approach, where
individuals and communities actively define their own capabilities and shape policies
affecting their lives.

Critiquing Conventional Theories

The Idea of Justice critiques traditional theories like utilitarianism and John Rawls’ theory of
justice. Sen argues that these theories fail to capture the complexities of human lives and
societies. Utilitarianism’s focus on aggregate happiness overlooks potential violations of
individual rights, while Rawls’ theory primarily concerns fair distribution without adequately
addressing variations in capabilities and freedoms. Sen’s critique underscores the need for a
more comprehensive understanding of justice that integrates both material and non-material
aspects.

The Role of Institutions

Sen emphasizes the importance of institutions in achieving justice. Instead of relying solely
on abstract principles, he urges us to critically examine how institutions operate in practice.
The quality of healthcare, education systems, governance, and access to justice directly

9
affects people’s capabilities and freedoms. By scrutinizing these institutions, we can identify
areas where justice is compromised and work to rectify systemic flaws.

Implications for Creating a Just Society

Sen’s ideas have profound implications for creating a just society. The capabilities approach
directs attention to providing individuals with the resources, opportunities, and freedoms
necessary for fulfilling lives. This entails investing in education, healthcare, social services,
and infrastructure to enhance capabilities and expand freedoms. Addressing inequalities and
systemic injustices becomes central, ensuring disadvantaged groups have equal access to
opportunities and resources.

Conclusion

Amartya Sen’s The Idea of Justice offers a fresh perspective on justice, urging us to
reevaluate our understanding and its application in society. By emphasizing capabilities,
freedoms, and the functioning of institutions, Sen expands the scope of justice beyond mere
distribution and fairness. His critique of conventional theories highlights their limitations in
capturing the complexities of human lives, calling for a broader understanding that integrates
diverse capabilities and freedoms.

Sen’s work challenges us to rethink the foundations of justice and consider its
multidimensional nature. By embracing the capabilities approach and fostering the proper
functioning of institutions, we can move closer to realizing a just society. Engaging with
Sen’s ideas and incorporating them into our conversations and actions can contribute to
creating a more just and inclusive future for generations to come.

Communitarian theory of justice

communitarianism, social and political philosophy that emphasizes the

importance of community in the functioning of political life, in the analysis and
evaluation of political institutions, and in understanding human identity and
well-being. Communitarian ideas have a long history, in the West, China, and

10
elsewhere, but modern-day communitarianism began in the upper reaches of
Anglo-American academia in the form of a critical reaction to John Rawls’
landmark 1971 book A Theory of Justice (Rawls 1971). Drawing primarily upon
the insights of Aristotle and Hegel, political philosophers such as Alasdair
MacIntyre, Michael Sandel, Charles Taylor and Michael Walzer disputed
Rawls’ assumption that the principal task of government is to secure and
distribute fairly the liberties and economic resources individuals need to lead
freely chosen lives.

These critics of liberal theory never did identify themselves with the
communitarian movement (the communitarian label was pinned on them by
others, usually critics), much less offer a grand communitarian theory as a
systematic alternative to liberalism. Nonetheless, certain core arguments meant
to contrast with liberalism’s devaluation of community recur in the works of the
above-mentioned theorists.

The communitarian critique of justice argues that traditional liberal theories of

justice, such as John Rawls' social contract theory, prioritize individual rights
and interests over the common good and communal values.

Liberal theories focus too much on individual autonomy, neglecting the

importance of community and social relationships. Communitarians argue that
justice cannot be understood in isolation from the social and cultural context in
which it is situated.

Communitarians emphasize the significance of shared values, traditions, and

practices in shaping our understanding of justice. Communitarians challenge the
idea of universal principles of justice, arguing that justice is always rooted in
particular communities and contexts.

Communitarians stress the importance of citizen participation and deliberation

in shaping justice and the common good.

11
Key communitarian thinkers:

- Michael Sandel

- Charles Taylor

- Alasdair MacIntyre

- Amitai Etzioni

-Michael Walzer

Michael Sandel is a prominent political philosopher and Harvard professor

known for his work on justice, ethics, and democracy.

Critiques the liberal idea of the "unencumbered self," which is

detached from social roles and commitments.

o Argues that justice involves understanding individuals as

embedded in community contexts.
o Sandel advocates for a communitarian approach, emphasizing the
role of shared values, traditions, and social context in shaping our
understanding of justice.
o He stresses the need for citizens to engage in public discourse and
democratic decision-making to shape justice and the common
good.

Key works:

- "Liberalism and the Limits of Justice" (1982)

- "Democracy's Discontent" (1996)

- "Public Philosophy" (2005)

- "Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?" (2009)

12
- "What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets" (2012)

Michael Walzer:

In "Spheres of Justice," Walzer argues that justice is pluralistic and context-

dependent.

Different social goods should be distributed according to the values and norms
of specific communities.

Justice involves respecting the diversity of communal values and practices.

Key works

"Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality" (1983)

"Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations" (1977)

"Interpretation and Social Criticism" (1987)

"The Company of Critics: Social Criticism and Political Commitment in the

Twentieth Century" (1988)

Thick and Thin: Moral Argument at Home and Abroad" (1994)

"Exodus and Revolution" (1985):

Charles Taylor is a Canadian philosopher known for his work on political

philosophy, ethics, and the nature of justice.

Taylor argues that liberal theories of justice, which aim to be neutral and
impartial, fail to account for the importance of cultural and communal
values.
Taylor emphasizes the need for recognition of individual and group
identities, cultures, and values in achieving justice.
Taylor sees justice as a relational concept, dependent on the relationships
and interactions between individuals and groups.

13
 Taylor believes that shared values and common goods are essential for
justice, rather than just individual rights and interests.
Taylor argues that procedural justice, which focuses on fair procedures, is
insufficient for achieving justice, as it neglects the importance of
substantive values.
Taylor sees justice as a contextual concept, shaped by the specific
cultural, historical, and social context.

Key works:

- "Sources of the Self" (1989)

- "The Ethics of Authenticity" (1991)

- "Multiculturalism and the Politics of Recognition" (1992)

- "A Secular Age" (2007)

- "Dilemmas and Connections" (2011)

Amitai Etzioni is a sociologist and philosopher who has made significant

contributions to the field of justice.

Etzioni advocates for a communitarian approach to justice, emphasizing the

importance of community, social norms, and collective well-being.

Etzioni argues that justice requires balancing individual rights and freedoms
with the needs and interests of the community.

Etzioni sees social norms as essential for maintaining social order and achieving
justice, as they provide a moral framework for behavior.

Etzioni critiques excessive individualism, arguing that it can lead to social

isolation, erosion of community, and neglect of collective needs.

Etzioni stresses the importance of social responsibility, encouraging individuals

to take responsibility for their actions and contribute to the common good.

14
Etzioni sees justice as a dynamic concept, constantly evolving to address
changing social circumstances and needs.

Key works:

- "The Active Society" (1968)

- "The Spirit of Community" (1993)

- "The New Golden Rule" (1996)

- "The Moral Dimension" (1988)

- "Law and Society in a Populist Age" (2019)

Alasdair MacIntyre

o In "After Virtue," MacIntyre critiques modern moral philosophy

for losing the connection between individual actions and
communal narratives.
o Emphasizes the importance of "virtue ethics," where virtues are
defined by community practices and history.
o Justice is about living a life of virtue according to one's
community.

Key Works

"After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory" (1981)

Whose Justice? Which Rationality?" (1988)

Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry: Encyclopaedia, Genealogy, and

Tradition" (1990)

"Dependent Rational Animals: Why Human Beings Need the Virtues" (1999)

Ethics in the Conflicts of Modernity: An Essay on Desire, Practical Reasoning,

and Narrative" (2016)

15